Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense Calls for Evidence in Duke Rape Case
WTVD/Durham ^ | May 22, 2006 | AP

Posted on 05/22/2006 4:05:16 PM PDT by zaxxon

Lawyers representing one of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape want details about any toxicology tests performed on the accuser, asking in a motion filed Monday whether such evidence even exists.

"No such toxicology report, if it exists, was provided to the defense," wrote attorneys Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner, referring to nearly 1,300 pages of evidence prosecutors provided to defense attorneys last week. The attorneys represent Reade Seligmann, one of three lacrosse players charged with raping a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a March 13 team party.

Seligmann's attorneys want a judge to order prosecutors to provide any reports "generated from blood, urine or other biological samples" collected from the accuser. In the motion, they cited a story published in Newsweek earlier this month that said District Attorney Mike Nifong "hinted" such tests would reveal the presence of a date-rape drug.

Authorities have said a doctor and specially trained nurse performed a physical exam on the accuser that found evidence of sexual assault. But the nurse who filled out a report on that exam indicted no toxicology tests were performed, according to the defense motion.

Nifong declined to comment.

(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; falseallegations; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 821-828 next last
To: David Allen

You completely misread post #530.


681 posted on 05/24/2006 11:45:44 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

I think the biggest thing that the DA has to be concerned about is if he knowingly used false information to gain the indictments by the GJ.
I believe he, like any other witness before a GJ, has to present truthful information. I know the saying about indicting a ham sandwich, but with all the information that has been forthcoming in recent days I find it very hard to believe he got the third indictment based on truthful information. I also have to believe at that point he had to have known that he was presenting false information.
But then again, maybe not. He may actually be that clueless.


682 posted on 05/24/2006 11:45:51 AM PDT by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: js1138

You've already said that once, and you've already been told you're wrong.

Maybe nagging is your thing, but you're wasting your time on me, Miss.


683 posted on 05/24/2006 11:47:17 AM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

I agree. I think Nifong's image is very important to him or he wouldn't be huffing and puffing about the lawyers being afraid to go up against him and saying, "If I were they, I'd be afraid to go up against me,too."

It sounds like something some thug in the 'hood would say.

Oh........yeah. I see. Nifong IS a thug in the 'hood.


684 posted on 05/24/2006 11:47:32 AM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: maggief

I see her hair.


685 posted on 05/24/2006 11:50:49 AM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Enhance Capitol security: Censure Cynthia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: wiltale

Finally some backbone shows at Duke.

Good for those women.

The pressure should be kept on. If Nifong thinks we will forget about this waiting for the trial, he is as usual, mistaken.


686 posted on 05/24/2006 11:52:16 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

I forgot he had boasted like that.


687 posted on 05/24/2006 11:54:34 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

again you have misread what I have posted

1. you have injected "ingestion" into this, whereas I have said AT THE TIME IT WAS DRAWN

2. you compressed it to "rohypnol" alone.....something I never even implied

3. now with all of your vast interdisciplinary knowledge on display, you are not going to research in order to back your claim????

Gimme a break......GC/MS can pick up the presence of extremely minute amounts of anything.....and the leftovers of anything.....and the byproducts of the leftovers of anything.

I asked you politely to direct me to an authoritative source. You didn't.

If a blood specimen taken the early morning of Mar 14 still exists, it can still be tested to establish what drugs etc were in circulation in her body at the time the blood was drawn. I've never said or implied more or less than just that.......and except for your post(s), I've been able to find nothing to contradict what I said and still believe.


688 posted on 05/24/2006 11:55:46 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

Yeah, I was happy to see it. Unfortunately it was almost immediately removed to chat.


689 posted on 05/24/2006 11:56:09 AM PDT by wiltale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: David Allen
From #530:
Excellent post, Protect.

I think assuming that the nurse failed to do her duty or has a heavy bias is jumping the gun. I have said all along, and find it much more likely, that if the nurse thought tox was warranted, then Mangum declined, rather than assuming the nurse failed in some manner. Of course it is possible that she's a heavily biased man-hating feminazi, but it's much more likely that she is similar to the vast majority of nurses who are the dedicated, caring, hard-working, "heavy lifters" of the medical industry who rightfully take great pride in their work. Until I see facts to indicate otherwise, I assume the SANE nurse is among the majority and either she saw no need for a test or, more likely in my opinion, Mangum declined. Someone posted that blood had been drawn. I have to wonder if the SANE nurse assumed the test should be done and drew the blood, but when it came time to sign the consent forms and other statements, Mangum declined to consent to the testing of her blood for toxic substances
From your reply:
You're making assumptions that you have no idea whether they're true, and then pretending they have greater validity than the assumptions of others. Just because the SANE is a female nurse doesn't mean she's Florence Nightengale. She may be Nurse Ratchett, and given today's world, more likely Ratchett than Nightengale. If this were a male police officer or a lawyer whose conduct you were evaluating, you wouldn't presume that he did his job properly. You're sexist and think because she's a woman, she must be honest and dedicated. Frankly, your posts read like one of the crazies at DU, a stripper (prostitute) who called herself "torchthewitch," except for the occasional "feminazi" you throw in to innoculate your post. Are you THAT woman? Because you sure talk like her.
There is no assumption of "Florence Nightengale". There is an assumption, that the nurse did her job correctly. There are no facts to indicate otherwise, and any other assumption is biased. Your response is Looney Toons.
690 posted on 05/24/2006 11:56:14 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
I used to defend Section 1983 claims, skin color is not a factor, really--unless of course you're arguing racial discrimination. But because liberals took what was originally designed to protect traditional civil rights and expanded it to include all rights in the Constitution and Federal statute, plus attorney fees --even if you have only one dollar of damage--the Lax boys have a great claim against Durham. I agree that Nifong skates but Durham gets hosed. Nifong will be a named defendant though and Durham will have to provide him an attorney.
691 posted on 05/24/2006 12:00:59 PM PDT by don'tbedenied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

David, you need to cut the apron strings. You really are revealing a great deal of deep-seated hatred toward women generally, up to and including imagining things. I don't know if it's some sort of inadequacy or virility issue but, whatever the cause, it's very unattractive in a man, especially when you rabidly accuse conservative women of being lefties because it indicates your perceptions are distorted. It makes you look small and, well, dissatisfied with yourself in some manner.

Take it easy on yourself. Relax. You'll live longer.


692 posted on 05/24/2006 12:03:17 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: don'tbedenied

That's the way I see it, too. I hope the defense is at least contemplating going into federal court.


693 posted on 05/24/2006 12:04:42 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

I didn't realize how nuts David's reply was until I re-read it. It's from another universe.

The default assumption in life is that people do their jobs reasonably well. Everything we know about this situation points to the exam being done correctly, possibly under difficult circumstances.

I'll believe otherwise when I see evidence.


694 posted on 05/24/2006 12:09:26 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: pj_627

For somebody who doesn't post much, yoou sure do write a fine post.

I don't know if the damage can be undone. It is deeply rooted in the black culture now. They don't realize that the left keeps their large sub-culture of black losers as they would pets.

But the black culture in America wasn't always like that. Black Americans used to have a high marriage rate and fewer out-of-wedlock births than whites, but look at them now. Thank you, LBJ, and your "Great society."

It's said that it's always better to press on with moving forward, but in this particular arena it may be better to go back in time so they can have a do-over - a "mulligan." Just erase the last forty years of black cultural evolution. Never has there been a greater need for it nor such a glaring example of how NOT to assimilate.


695 posted on 05/24/2006 12:14:04 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: don'tbedenied

Actually I don't think they have a great 1983 claim, but I think it's the best of the legal weapons they could reach for, and yes, I am arguing racial discrimination. There are at least some grounds in this case for basing a claim that the prosecutorial machinery of the state of North Carolina was improperly abused in order to bring baseless charges against these individuals because of their race, thereby denying them their federal constitutional rights, with the purpose of the false charges being to appease the black population of Durham and bolster the election chances of the incumbent District Attorney with black voters.

I don't think it's a winner, and I also think that if the races were reversed a federal court would be much more likely to find that the facts of this case could state a 1983 claim.


696 posted on 05/24/2006 12:17:18 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

Whether or not a court would agree, I think it is a pretty good 1983 claim. You can clearly pass the race test, what with the speech at NCCU, with Nifong's meeting with the New Black Panthers, and the comparative treatment of white victims. You also have constitutional violations including the search (based on false information not submitted in good faith), the line-up, the invasion of the dorms, possibly the phony emails (did they have a warrant to exercise dominion over the email space), the ethical violations which may rise to constituional tainting, the public denuciation of the right to remain silent, as well as possibly the destruction of evidence (if the phone was allowed to die off). I think they get by a motion to dismiss.


697 posted on 05/24/2006 12:20:59 PM PDT by streeeetwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
Well I've seen articles that say the taxi driver element of RS's alibi was "discredited" because of the "white car". I don't agree but it would be better if there were a logical explanation.
698 posted on 05/24/2006 12:32:37 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

How do the clients usually pay the escort service, wouldn't it usually be by credit card? Why did the LAX players pay the girls directly?


699 posted on 05/24/2006 12:33:50 PM PDT by Waterfall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: streeeetwise

Well, hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised if it comes to that.


700 posted on 05/24/2006 12:36:37 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 821-828 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson